American Atheists successful in Utah State Highway Patrol case

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "American Atheists successful in Utah State Highway Patrol case." Read this article and others on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Criticism of "We can't know the mind of God"

"We can't know the mind of God" is a popular theistic smokescreen that utterly fails upon examination.


In several discussions with theists, particularly when the problem of natural evil is the topic of discussion, one of the last defenses of theists, when all of their arguments are seemingly defeated, is "we can't know the mind of God." In a longer form, this typically means something similar to "Our knowledge, when reflecting on what an omniscient being can and does know, is so, so, so slim. To claim that God has no reason for allowing something to happen is so arrogant. How can you claim to know the mind of God? Perhaps God has some reasons that we are unaware of that can justify all of this evil."

In a debate with philosopher Stephen Law, William Lane Craig used this as one of his defenses for the problem of evil. This view is quite problematic, ultimately fails to offer a solid defense to the problem of evil, gives us no new knowledge, and seems to be quite dishonest in the case of the many other claims Christians make about the supernatural.

Claiming that one "can't know the mind of God," especially when the problem of natural evil is being discussed, when using the "We can't know the mind of God" defense, typically is asserting that there may be some good reasons that God has for allowing evil...so this suffering now really isn't, perhaps, so much of a bad thing. Going farther, some may even assert that an afterlife 'make up for' the suffering now.

The main problem with these above views is that the theist is forced into an odd kind of moral skepticism. If some event x may lead to a greater good 'for all we know,' can we really say that some event x is really a bad thing? How about 'good' events? 'For all we know,' 'good' event y might not be conducive to good and our perceptions might be wrong! You can't know the mind of God, after all! If we can't really know the mind of God when 'evil' is concerned, it seems to follow that we also can't know the mind of God when 'good' is concerned. That earthquake over there...who are you to say that that is a bad thing? Perhaps it's part of God's plan and this earthquake is needed for the salvation of those two month children! As you see, this "you can't know the mind of God" defense leads the theist into making absurd statements.

The "we can't know the mind of God" defense also seems to go against everything we can possibly know about ethics and seems to throw all moral progress to the wayside. If "we can't know the mind of God," clearly all moral philosophy is a waste of time...and everything we can claim about ethics is flawed because, for all we know, what we say is undesirable might actually be desirable. As hard as we try, it seems, "if we can't know the mind of God," we can't ever confidently make tenable claims about ethics. Again, the theistic defense is patently absurd.

Further, "we can't know the mind of God" seems quite contrary to what theists typically claim. They will say that adultery, murder, rape, killing children for the fun of it, and so much more are undesirable. If it is the case that we can't know the mind of God, how can we possibly say that we do know the mind of God when certain issues are concerned? Why is it the case that we can know the mind of God when some issues are concerned and such issues, without even appealing to God, seem quite evident...and other issues, such as the egregious suffering of animals and humans lead theists to say, even though these issues are quite evident (and seem to lead us to the conclusion that an omni-good god would not 'design' this plan), that "we can't know the mind of God?" It seems, rather, that theists are trying to rationalize their beliefs; instead of saying "I have no answer for this and it really seems that there is no all-loving god," they say "we can't know the mind of God."

Saying "we can't know the mind of God" seems to be an egregious ad hoc defense that renders belief in God falsifiable, thus making belief in God irrational. For an analogy of sorts, suppose I claim that there is a unicorn in my room. You look inside and do not see such a unicorn and have good reasons, before even stepping into my room, that there are no good reasons to believe in unicorns because all defenses you have heard were quite lackluster. When you try to find the unicorn, I say things like the unicorn is invisible, shy, incorporeal, immune to detection, etc. You'd be justified in believing that my belief was irrational because nothing you could say, if you listen to my defenses, could ever serve to show that the belief is false. Much in the same way that the unicorn belief is irrational, so is the belief in God if the believer says "We can't know the mind of God" because every attempt the non-believer tries to show that the belief is irrational is simply 'excused away' and no possible argument can serve as a defeater.

Claiming "we can't know the mind of God" adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge and thus should be rejected as an explanation. In his article "Can God Explain Anything," in Think, philosopher Theodore Shick talks about explanatory power as being a very important criterion to consider when evaluating a hypothesis. He writes, "We seek explanations because we seek understanding. The best explanation, then, is the one that produces the most understanding. The amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge." It seems to follow, then, that "we can't know the mind of God" is no good defense [for the problem of evil] because it provides no knowledge.

When we consider knowledge, hopefully, we understand that our claims ought to be the best representations of reality. While we certainly can be wrong about everything, all we can possibly work with is what we know now. If we were to globally apply "we can't know [the mind of God]," we would have to be agnostic about everything, it seems. For all we know, of course, we could all be part of a computer simulation and the world as we know it is an advanced program run by someone in an alternate universe. We have no good reason to believe this, so we simply don't. Shall we also be agnostic about our moral beliefs? Of course not....we have no good reason to.

"We can't know the mind of God" also falls prey to other problems. Stephen Law, in his article "The God of Eth," among other things, mentions that the standard defenses for the problem of evil can be 'mirrored' to defend belief in an evil god...and theists, of course, recognize that "you can't know the mind of an all-evil god" fails and is profoundly irrational. Of course theists don't believe in an omni-good god or an omni-evil god based on evil or good in the world, as critics might contend, but this misses the point of Law's argument. Theists can typically offer arguments for a god, but they seem to get no further, if we even are to 'accept' them, than a deistic god or a 'vanilla' god with no moral designation. Even if a god allows us to know what us objectively good and we accept the idea of objective moral values, we still can't conclude that this god is good - perhaps the god is neutral or evil and we can know regardless. If theists won't accept "you can't know the mind of an omni-evil god," we do they use "we can't know the mind of an omni-good god?"

"You can't know the mind of God" seems to lead a theist into utter moral skepticism, asserts that our notions of right and wrong are untenable, seems contrary to theistic claims of what they do know, renders theistic belief to be unfalsifiable [thus making it irrational], gives us no new knowledge, and is contrary to how we typically consider knowledge [based on what we know now]. Instead of offering poor defenses to the problem of evil like "you can't know the mind of god," theists should admit that there is no good defense for the problem of evil and realize that their belief in an omni-good god is irrational. The problem of evil is unanswered and serves as a defeater to belief in an omni-good god.

Truth Relativism and Liberal Religion

(Jesus is astonished by your heresy!)

I lament the attitude of "There is no truth" (which is a self-refuting statement) and often hear this phrase uttered by religious laypersons. They may even go as far as "We can't know if there is or is not a god/there's no evidence for or against" ... and then inconsistently/dishonestly say that they believe in a god. I ask why this is a case and the person usually tries to pull the 'right to opinion card' or other similar nonsense. I proceed to ask, "Do you care about holding true beliefs?" and the vicious circle continues. Sometime, though, people actually admit that they don't care about whether their religious beliefs are true, but rather claim to believe because of some sort of utility argument (I like the community, it makes me feel good, etc).

Many 'liberal religious folk' I have encountered have bought into the attitude of "God loves everyone no matter what, so everyone goes to Heaven no matter what people believe." This, I think, fuels the "I don't care about what's true attitude" and might be responsible for so many believers knowing little to nothing (or simply not caring) about their faith. If God loves everyone and everyone will be saved, what's the point of bothering with any religious claims or caring about what should be believed about the supernatural, they may think. Those of the "spiritual, but not religious" or "religious, but I don't go to church" communities love this stuff.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning, when considering Christianity: it has little to no Biblical support, negates/ignores/contradicts the idea of Hell and punishment after death, makes Jesus a liar, and Jesus dying on the cross makes no/little sense. In order to buy into the "God loves everyone no matter what, so everyone goes to Heaven no matter what people believe" sentiment, one has to throw away a great deal of the Bible, theology, Church teachings, and so much more.

If God loves everyone no matter what and everyone goes to Heaven, individual believers have to do a great deal of mental gymnastics. One ought to wonder how this attitude is compatible with Jesus dying on the cross to forgive sins; if this attitude were correct, what was the point? As always, we can offer ad hoc explanations to try to excuse away contradictions such as Jesus' death was a symbolic reminder, served additional purposes, was needed so that people can truly know God [although this runs counter to the William Lane Craig and others' apologetics of direct intervention by God would take away free will], etc. Confession, in the Catholic Church, can similarly be excused away by saying something like "Confession is an affirmation of trust in God's promise."

When these mental gymnastics are used, the believer starts to sound sillier and sillier...and very similar to a conspiracy theorist. While many of my atheistic/non-theistic readers might find the entire enterprise of Christianity untenable, the person who enters into the 'unbiblical' territory may seem 'even worse.' 'Traditionalists' like Michael Voris and those of the Westboro Baptist Church, especially, have called this attitude for what it is: a lie inconsistent with the Bible and, in the case of Voris, a heresy against the Church's teachings. In addition to saying "God won't hear your prayers," the Westboro Baptist Church is at least right on two counts.

Some believers might even say that they "believe in something [supernatural]" and all persons are simply viewing this "something" in a different way, but all views are valid. This simply can't be justified because contradictory accounts are not compatible.

While 'liberal Christianity' is certainly 'better' than a traditionalist version, the idea of God loves everyone no matter what and everyone goes to Heaven is simply indefensible and incompatible with the Bible. While anyone is 'free' to invent their own versions of religion, the questions should be "Is this view even tenable?" and "Does this cohere with the book I regard as being a foundational document of my religion?"

Even if it is the case that God really does love everyone and everyone can go to Heaven [and/or we can't possibly arrive at a truth], it should still be important to pursue knowledge and hold justified true beliefs. Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig says the following beautiful quote (that rivals the quote from Nagel that I have at the top of my website): "[T]here is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always impossible; the best that could be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of infallibility."

I generally don't like discussing Biblical themes (at least not anymore) because the discussions seem to go nowhere and the mental gymnastics believers can partake in could easily win gold medals at Olympic events. While there can be some 'bad theology' such as using the Bible to justify racism because of the 'curse of Ham,' there can be many, many, many, many theological conclusions in a very wide sea. With individual believers and sects all believing they are right and others are all wrong, how are we supposed to filter the sense from the nonsense? We obviously can't have two 'versions' that are right because there would be contradictions (and potential violations of the Law of the Excluded middle). So, shall we 'wager' that one version of theology is correct or believe that they are all wrong [about the supernatural]. My money would go with the latter.

Non-theistic readers: Have you heard the sentiment of "God loves everyone no matter what... and everyone goes to Heaven" from believers before? How do you respond to this and what are your thoughts?

Theistic readers: Do you think God loves everyone no matter what and everyone goes to Heaven? If so, how do you defend this?

Possible Upcoming Live Debate

Rev. Marcelle Dotson of Field of Grace United Methodist Church of the Wilkes-Barre/Kingston region may be debating me in the near future. I have chatted with her on several occasions and am quite excited for this potential debate. More info to come...

Upcoming Written Debate...terms

I have sent these following terms to JD Curtis for our upcoming written debate and he has accepted them with the following dates:

I will submit by next Sunday night. I'm a bit busy in the early part of this upcoming week.

Opening statement submitted/posted Sunday night the 6th.

1st rebuttal submitted/posted the evening of Tue the 8th.

The 2nd one by Thursday evening.the 10th.

Closing remarks either that following Sat (12th) or Sun (13th), whichever you prefer. Deal?

Me:

Okay, so here are my ideas for our upcoming written debate.

All typed parts, when minutes are indicated, mean minutes it would take to speak.

Motion – The Christian God exists [I would assume that the definition for Christian god is “omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe who sent Jesus to earth to die for the sins of mankind.]

Opening Statement (Affirmative – that's you) 10 minutes

Opening Statement (Negative – that's me) 10 minutes

Rebuttal 1 (Negative – that's me) 10 minutes

Rebuttal 1 (Affirmative – that's you) 10 minutes

Rebuttal 2 (Negative – that's me) 10 minutes

Rebuttal 2 (Affirmative – that's you) 10 minutes

Closing statement (Affirmative – that's you) 10 minutes

Closing statement (Negative – that's me) 10 minutes

While you may know, I'll provide some definitions so we are on the same page.

Opening statements are to introduce your arguments for or against the motion. Opening statements are not used to respond to the opponent, rebuttals are. The affirmative should make one or more arguments for the negative to address and in order for the affirmative to win the debate, his arguments must stand and make the case for the motion.

Rebuttal 1 addresses your opponent's opening statement. - no new arguments are here, but rather criticism of the opponent's opening statement

Rebuttal 2 allows for a response to rebuttal one. “...”

Closing statements can be whatever; they typically are used to summarize your points and say why you think you won the debate.

Make your arguments in the opening statement clear by use of deductive argument. For example: Premise One: If there is no mustard on the table, there is no hot dog. Premise Two: There is no mustrard. Conclusion: There is no hot dog. This is important so that the argument is clear for the audience and the opponent (so there is hopefully no strawmanning).

Please limit arguments in the opening statement to no more than five main arguments (and feel free to use less). This is only fair because the opening affirmative can present, say, ten arguments, and the negative could never possibly address all in the rebuttal.

Keep the discussion limited to the debate (no going around on each other's blogs/published works/etc and arguing against those points). For example, if I bring up three arguments in my opening statement, the rebuttal will address those, not what I have typed elsewhere and didn't use in the debate. Also, no using others' arguments (for example: no links to, say, internetinfidels or reasonable faith) – make your own case.

No copy-pasting previous posts to form rebuttals or openings. While arguments may be 'rehashed' in a way, keep it original for the debate. For example, if I want to talk about the problem of evil, me going and 'reposting' a blog post I wrote for the debate is not permissible.

Our individual statements/rebuttals will be listed on our respective blogs with links to all previous parts of the debate in each post as hyperlinks. For example, if we are at rebuttal 1 and I'm typing my rebuttal, I'll hyperlink both opening statements to start the post.

Title blog posts regarding the written statements as “Curtis/Vacula Debate Series.” This way, in addition to hyperlinking, readers can know what's going on.

Do you want to put some sort of correspondence time limit on this? For example, after we both post our opening statements, each of us will have a certain time limit to respond with rebuttals and so on.

How about this:
Sunday: Opening Statements to be posted before midnight

Monday: Rebuttal 1s …

Tuesday: Rebuttal 2s …

Wednesday: Closing Statements ...

Any other ideas?

Okay with everything here?

"Bible Buck" on County Ballot - Legal?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Can a candidate for county council be listed on the ballot with "Bible Buck" as part of his name?

Wall of Shame: Family Members #2

My Aunt Lori is such a 'loving Christian' [and so is my Aunt Carolann] About a month or so after she added me as a friend on Facebook, she responded with vitriol (presumably because she read something I wrote) on my Facebook wall and in Facebook messages. She thinks that I am still a Catholic [Apparently giving up candy for Lent, going to church, being an alter boy, being confirmed, etc makes someone a Catholic forever. While some Catholics may think this, it's quite absurd because one can't be both a Catholic and an atheist (one who lacks belief in any gods], threatens me with Hell, am dishonest about my beliefs, is lying about what my family members are saying, is now calling family members to "talk to them about me," says that I will turn out to be a nothing [like my father, of course, because she also is bashing him for some reason and bringing him into this].

Some information is blotted out above. My aunt claimed that I was saying bad things about my mother and her boyfriend online (which led to my mother calling my phone to scream and cry in on a voicemail message). I later had to explain that I didn't say any of these things after some unneeded major drama. My aunt also claims that my "Aunt Dee" (I won't use her name here) is saying bad things about me which is false because I am on very good terms with "Aunt Dee."

It's obviously the case that not all religious people are like this, but I would find it extremely hard to believe that her religious ideas are not the cause of this nonsense (specially because she brings this into the discussion). The point of this post, really, is to show how harmful religious beliefs can be - to lead family members such as my Aunt Lori to send me nonsense and try to make my life worse.

Atheists need to come out if they can so that this nonsense is ebbed - help to end the marginalization, stigmatization, and invisibility of atheists. Theists, too, need to speak up in their own communities when they hear atheist-bashing language or other wild misconceptions.

I eventually blocked my aunt after she ceased to actually defend her beliefs and failed to respond to anything anyone was saying. Spew hate, talk nonsense...why not? I would think that she would follow 1 Peter 3:15 if she believes "the bible is from god above," but I suppose not.

Anticipating Debate Complaints and Excuses

As my readers may know, Charlie "Bible Buck" Hatchko has accepted the NEPA Freethought Society's debate challenge and has agreed to debate me soon after the Luzerne County election period is over (and he either wins or loses his political bid). Although the challenge has been online for about three months, published in the Citizen's Voice, and much more, only Hatchko accepted it.

I wonder, as I have said in the past, why a very religious area such as Northeastern Pennsylvania consisting of people who were willing to send me hate mail in the past and become so angry with me are so unwilling to have a formal public debate, yet is quite happy to run their mouths with nothing more than personal attacks and 'non-arguments.'

Many pious priests and the bishop of the Scranton Diocese are very happy to make ridiculous allegations against atheists and preach about how their beliefs are so true and grounded in the word of God...yet they are unwilling to have a debate.

I have heard that some people with knowledge of their faith are simply not good debaters, don't like debates, don't have the time, focus on other issues, etc. Fine. Let's assume that this is the case for a very generous amount of people in the area - perhaps 90% of those who would be qualified to debate. Why the silence from the other 10%?

Some, instead of saying why they won't accept the debate or why other people won't debate, levy personal attacks and nonsense like "you're just looking for attention."

One ought to wonder why someone 'looking for attention' dedicates a large amount of time writing about philosophy, religion, skepticism, science, etc. Perhaps, if it were the case that I'm "just looking for attention," I'd be much more abrasive in my posting, would not be charitable, would be intentionally provoking people, and so much more. Perhaps I would convert to Christianity, even. Further, the charge of looking for attention is silly when I obviously already have it. Is it unreasonable, anyway, for one to want to expand his/her readership and spread his/her ideas in a positive manner? Shall everyone else be at fault for this?

The silence in this area is absolutely impressive and very telling of the weakness of religious claims. While it might be the case, like I mentioned, that people do have some justifiable reasons to decline the debate challenge, this can't be the case for everyone. If one's religious claims were true, someone from that religion, one would expect, should be able to demonstrate such by using really good argument, evidence, and reason. We should expect apologists absolutely demolishing the best arguments atheists have to offer...and we simply don't see this whether we look at a national or international level. People should be jumping for this debate challenge and wanting to get their spot to demolish my arguments...but this isn't the case, of course. Likewise, we also don't see many theists at all even commenting on my posts arguing why their arguments are justified and what I'm saying is totally off the mark.

Is it the case that people such as Bishop Bambera simply can't afford to accept the debate? Is he afraid of atheists having a public debate in which the beliefs of churchgoers will be questioned? Might it be the case that a debate such as this will 'create' some atheists? Might this cause church attendance to go down?

Returning to the one person who did accept the challenge, Charlie Hatchko, theists might even object (assuming the debate happens and he loses the debate) that I even debated him. Perhaps they may say, "Oh, his arguments were so weak, why did you even debate him?" or "Surely there is a better representative for Christian belief! This was unfair!" I anticipate this actually happening and have listened to these complaints about other similar situations. If you are a theist and have complaints about who accepts the challenge, why don't you debate me (if you can and will do so and have some sort of qualification) or find someone who can? There is no shortage of theologians, ministers, priests, etc in this area.

Co-organizer/founder of the NEPA Freethought Society, Rodney Collins had the following to say:

Approximately a month ago local outspoken activist and spokesperson for the NEPA Freethought Society Justin Vacula issued a public challenge for a public debate on religion. To our great surprise not one local theist has taken Justin up on his challenge to date. During the nativity scene incident a couple years ago when Justin launched an offensive against the Luzerne County Courthouse to correct a constitutional wrong, literally hundreds of local theists flocked to their computer keyboards in an obvious effort to personally attack Mr. Vacula, but never his arguments. Commenting while cloaked is far too easy, but to put your face, your identity, and your reputation on the line in a public civil debate on religion, we simply get radio silence.

Justin displays no lack of courage when it comes to expressing his convictions. And given the fact that Justin has done nothing against his fellow county residents, other than disagree with their position on religion, and up-hold the U.S. Constitution, so what's all of the backlash and vitriol actually about? I think that it's about this biblical passage, 1 Peter 3:15, Justin's ongoing challenge, and the fact that personal attacks have been the best defense local theists have been able to muster to date. Justin's intentions aren't to attract a negative emotional response as we keep seeing from local theists, but rather a positive intellectual response, which we have yet to see from local theists. So the question is begged, where are they now, where are all of the so-called self proclaimed patriots of the faith here in Luzerne County?

Complaints, complaints, excuses, excuses are the order of the day in NEPA. As always, if you think I'm off the mark here, please post why you believe this. If you are a theist, please take my above advice (and also feel free to post).

Angie Jackson and Jonathan Malesic on Christianity and feminism

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Angie Jackson and Jonathan Malesic on Christianity and feminism." Read this and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates via e-mail!

Debate Challenge Sent to Diocese of Scranton [again]

Why is the Diocese of Scranton, the bishop, and its priests evading the NEPA Freethought Society's debate challenge? Here's my next attempt at contacting them.

Debate Challenge to Scranton Diocese

Response to "Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig" by Richard Dawkins (I'm clearly not in 'camp Dawkins' on this one)

I'm quite a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, as you may guess, but his recent Guardian article that poses reasons why he wouldn't debate William Lane Craig is lacking.

Dawkins starts his article with what seems to be a personal attack against Craig talking about how he "parades himself as a philosopher" and follow this with basically saying that a debate with Craig would look good on Craig's CV, but not Dawkins'. I don't think that this is a good reason at all to refuse a debate. Like it or not, and regardless of what you think of Craig's arguments, Craig is well-esteemed within his own community and may as well be considered the foremost Christian apologist. Why, I wonder, wouldn't one of the most well-known atheists who has published work and so much more arguing that Christian belief is untenable be unwilling to debate?

Dawkins has debated many theists (although most of them were clergy of sorts) and even participated in a debate of sorts (although it was not one-on-one) with William Lane Craig! Why not William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins one-on-one? Sure, Craig has placed empty chairs on stages, cajoled Dawkins on occasions, and Craig's fans have also 'attacked' Dawkins. So what? This, I think, should give Dawkins more reason to debate to show Craig that he can win a debate and undermine Christian belief against what might be the strongest defender of Christianity.

Dawkins mentions how Craig is an 'apologist for genocide' and notes what he considers to be Craig's horrid excuses for justifying genocide in the Bible. All the more reason to engage Craig, I think... I would assume that Dawkins is aware that many other Christians would defend these atrocities/try to reconcile God with genocide...and he has probably debated these people.

Dawkins wants those who debate Craig to to read Craig's defenses of genocide. Why shouldn't he, instead, do so himself and defend his ideas in a public debate?

Perhaps Dawkins, instead of debating Craig, should instead appoint a replacement to do so in late 2011 or early 2012. I would recomend that those with backgrounds in Philosophy, rather than evolutionary biologists (unless the debate is about evolution, perhaps, although philosophy will pop into debates and those without philosophical backgrounds usually get steamrolled by Craig). This, perhaps, is no fault of Dawkins and isn't saying anything bad about him. Likewise, I wouldn't be the proper person to debate evolution against a creationist; I think Eugenie C. Scott, Jerry Coyne, or Massimo Pigliucci would be far better candidates.

I have issued a debate challenge to Craig and have received no response to date, unfortunately, and have issued the challenge soon after I read the Dawkins article. Regardless, here are some great candidates for a debate with Craig. This list obviously won't include everyone, so I'll just list a few of my picks. I won't mention Stephen Law on this list because Law performed wonderfully and recently debated Craig. Here are five persons I would love to see Craig debate (besides myself, of course):

Theodore Shick
Shick, co-author of How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking in a New Age (and much more), is a great philosopher who can apply the methodology presented in his book to show that belief in God is irrational. It was a great pleasure to hear him talk at King's College in Pennsylvania! Shick did so in "Think" magazine. Let's see it happen in 2011/2012 in a debate.

Massimo Pigliucci

Pigliucci did an amazing job debating Craig and some others (Horner, Ham...) in the past, but it's been quite a while. He's easily one of my favorite living philosophers and would do atheists (and everyone else) a great service in debating Craig.

Matt Dillahunty (!)

Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience, is a phenomenal debater who does amazingly in an impromptu setting (and even better in a non-impromptu setting). His show (and that of other ACA members) has worldwide renown and Matt is known by many as a fierce 'defender of atheism.' He's addressed all of Craig's arguments (or variations of them) on the show and would do really well debating Craig. The question for Craig should be this: "Why haven't you offered a debate challenge to Dillahunty yet (or called his show to debate on-air)?" Matt, of course, as many fans know, is quite busy right now, but hopefully the future will bring a Dillahunty/Craig debate!

Daniel Dennett

Why hasn't Dennett, one of the 'new atheists,' debated Craig yet? Dennett has debated McGrath, Plantinga, and D'Souza. Dennett obviously has a strong background in philosophy and would do a great job against Craig.

Michael Shermer

Shermer is a wonderful debater on so many topics. He is able to apply skepticism and decisively show that many arguments for supernatural claims (in addition to others) are deeply flawed.

A global application of critical thinking skills (It's the flawed methodology, stupid!)

The beauty of a background in philosophy and critical thinking skills is that the knowledge you learn can apply to so, so, so many areas without extensive study of particular topics. While my strong suit is obviously arguing against religious claims, I can apply my skills from doing this to many other domains; my 'logical fallacy sense' goes off when I listen to '9/11 truthers,' holocaust deniers, 'alternative medicine' proponents, creationists, moon landing deniers, etc. There is, of course, a great deal of nonsense out there and everyone can't be expected to know everything, but a good knowledge of critical thinking skills can help one refute bad arguments.

Once I expanded my skepticism to other issues because religion such as 'alternative medicine,' evolution denial, and 9/11 conspiracy arguments, I noticed that the arguments presented follow a very similar flawed structure. Arguments from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, inappropriate appeals to authority, ad hoc explanations, and much more are the order of the day. At a basic level, an 'alternative medicine' proponent saying "you can't trust big pharma" (therefore 'alternative medicine' wins out and you shouldn't use 'Western medicine') is no different than a 9/11 truther saying "you can't trust the government and the mainstream media" (therefore there was a conspiracy and whatever the mainstream media and government says about 9/11 is false). A false dichotomy is a false dichotomy. A non-sequitur is a non-sequitur is a non-sequitur.

I've listened to Eugenie C. Scott and Massimo Pigliucci demolish creationist claims and defend evolution and noticed that the tactics they've used, although they were used in discussions/debates about evolution and creationism, can globally be applied to discussion of other issues. A very common creationist strategy, for example, is to attack evolution...but provide no good reason to accept creationism. Similarly, 9/11 truthers say "the 'official story' is unbelievable, look at all the problems with it" and believe that this is enough reason to accept a conspiracy claim...when they've provided no evidence to support the conspiracy claim.

In a post I authored titled "9/11 Truthers and Creationists are Strange Bedfellows," I demonstrated how creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit very similar errors in critical thinking. While these are two totally different topics, we can see the parallels in flawed thinking without even knowing much about the individual topics and happily dismiss the bad arguments!

As I expected, '9/11 truthers' didn't like this post didn't like this post and claimed that I was comparing them to creationists, but this simply is not the case; I discussed how the methodology of 'truthers' and creationists is similarly flawed. Ironically (or not), they misrepresented what I was saying and missed my point...and then went on to make the same errors I outlined in my post (false dichotomies, cherry picking, inappropriate appeals to authority, using discredited information) and added some personal attacks.

Skeptics can, at times, feel quite burdened by the great deal of information out there and can't possibly be expected to know of every conspiracy claim and how to refute it, but a mastery of critical thinking skills including specialization in one area, knowledge of logical fallacies, and a good amount of 'practice' from listening to debates and participating in discussions can be very helpful. While Michael Shermer, for example, can go toe-to-toe with 'truthers' better than I can, I can still notice the flaws in their methodology by explaining how there are committing critical thinking errors and explaining how logical fallacies are being committed.

Those in the 'skeptical community' and 'atheist community' would do a great service for themselves if they had a good understanding of critical thinking skills and a background in philosophy. While some do, I constantly lament a lack of this in the 'movements' and am doing my best to 'fill in the gaps' and do something about it by educating and making complicated concepts understandable for my audience. Much to the chagrin of the 'philosophically unwashed' (as my former teacher Professor Visgilio used to say), you can use philosophy in everyday life.

For some more examples of my application of critical thinking skills to tackle various arguments, please read the following blog posts: "Critical Thinking About Vegetarianism," "Dr. Oz is full of logical fallacies," "Conversation with a Born-Again Christian and Science Denial," "My Skeptical Adventure with Chiropractic..." and "Taoism and the Naturalistic Fallacy."

Upcoming written debate...

Much to the chagrin and perhaps much to the delight of my readers, I have accepted what turned out to be the written debate challenge from JD Curtis. Here's my past take on the matter...

In light of Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig, I have considered some of my ideas and feel that arguments need to be addressed although I don't think I'll reconsider my closed-stance on refusing to debate people in public face-to-face settings who don't have 'credentials.' Regardless, I've posted the following on the comments section of JD's blog:

JD, I have 'reconsidered' by decision to debate you [and have sent a debate challenge to WLC myself]. Blog post of mine is upcoming.

Let's work out the details. How about the topic "Does the Christian God exist?"

We can post our individual statements on our respective blogs and do this in a 'correspondence' matter of 'one person posts, the next person posts' in a minute length typed format

(opening statements from each - 10 minutes, rebuttals 10 minutes,

rebuttal responses 10 minutes

closing statements 5 minutes)

Here are some ideas I have:

Keep the discussion limited to the debate; don't go pulling previous posts your opponent authored, but rather 'start a new case' and directly address what is in the debate.

48 hour response time to any given post.

No copy-pasting to form your arguments or rebuttals.

Any other ideas?

Want to do this?

Rev. Joseph Bertha: Prayers helped stop Wyoming Valley flooding

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Rev. Joseph Bertha: Prayers helped stop Wyoming Valley flooding." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Author Jen Hancock affirms humanism as guide to morality

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Author Jen Hancock affirms humanism as guide to morality." Please subscribe to my Examiner.com page for instant updates for new content!

Upcoming Speaking Appearances (and more)

I have been invited by PA Nonbelievers and the Lancaster Freethought Society to speak and attend upcoming meetings in November. Here are the dates, places, and times all in Pennsylvania:

---

Lebanon meeting
November 9
special guest
7PM

Hoss's Steak and Sea house
1235 East Main Street, Annville
---

Harrisburg/Lemoyne meeting
November 10
speaking
6:45 PM

Issac's Deli
1200 W. Market Street
Lemoyne

---

Lancaster Freethought Society meeting

November 14

speaking

6:00 PM

Issac's Deli

1559 Manheim Pike

Lancaster

---

Chambersburg meeting
November 15
special guest
7:00PM

Jade Garden Restaurant
1685 Lincoln Hwy E
Chambersburg

---

...and one more special event on the 17th at Perkins in Camp Hill... details to be announced!




For those not in the NEPA area and in the Central/Southern PA area (or elsewhere), this would be a great chance for you to meet me and me to meet you!

Pat Robertson: Lack of belief in God is to blame for rise in anti-depressant use

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "Pat Robertson: Lack of belief in God is to blame for rise in anti-depressant use." View this article on more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notification of updates!

Debate Challenge Issued to William Lane Craig

I have extended the debate challenge I issued to the religious of Northeastern Pennsylvania to William Lane Craig. For those of you who don't know, William Lane Craig is often referred to as one of the most prominent Christian philosophers, Christian debaters, and Christian apologists.

The challenge was sent yesterday.

Although I don't have a PhD, Craig has debated persons with less 'credentials' than me [here are some of my credentials], so he ought to accept my challenge. I have a B.A. in Philosophy and Psychology, have received a distinguished award in philosophy at graduation, am writing for American Atheists' "No God Blog," am the co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the NEPA Freethought Society, write for Examiner.com as the 'Scranton Atheism Examiner,' have been featured in radio shows and podcasts, am the most prominent atheist in Northeastern Pennsylvania ... and much more.

My readers and I await an answer from Craig and hope for an engaging debate that is a great educational experience for the community. It's quite obvious that Craig loves to debate, so why not take this opportunity to do so? There is a profound lack of debate on this issue in Northeastern PA (notice the radio silence that followed my debate challenge to the region that only one person accepted even though they were happy to levy personal attacks against me in 2009 and even today).

Craig and has fans are quite dismayed that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate. In somewhat of a 'protest' or a 'calling out' of Dawkins, Craig has, according to a recent article by Dawkins, placed an empty chair on the stage for where Dawkins would be sitting if he were to debate. If Craig refuses to debate, shall I do the same? Craig, though, should not turn this wonderful opportunity down. Persons of NEPA and those from all across PA, NY, NJ, and perhaps even more states would be more than happy to pack an auditorium.

Religious scholar's speech met with objections from atheists

I published an article for Examiner.com titled "Religious scholar's speech met with objections from atheists." View this article and subscribe to my Examiner.com page for instant updates!

Political candidate Hatchko professes "Biblical principles" as a guide

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Political candidate Hatchko professes "Biblical principles" as a guide." Please subscribe to my Examiner.com page for instant update notifications!

Religious scholar Dr. Anita Houck to speak at King's College

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Religious scholar Dr. Anita Houck to speak at King's College."

This is mainly a promotional article. I hope to report on the Wednesday lectures.

Right to Opinion: The Dishonest and Indefensible Response to Disagreement

I authored a new post for American Atheists' "No God Blog" titled "Right to Opinion: The Dishonest and Indefensible Response to Disagreement." Enjoy!

Are atheists just as bad as racists?

(This is a Facebook screenshot in which a someone claims that atheists who "insult people" by "tearing them down do to their faith" is "as bad as racism and prejudice." Information is blotted out to protect the identities of some people (even though they are quite happy to claim that [some] atheists are just as bad as racists).

Backstory on this issue and the above picture...you don't need to read this to understand everything, but feel free to do so or simply skip to the next bolded section in this post:

At the expense of some drama, I feel that an issue desperately needs to be addressed right here and right now. This Friday, after my monthly "Drinking Skeptically" meetup of the NEPA Freethought Society, two friends of mine, with me, went to a local business (name removed in the above picture) to 'shoot the breeze,' play some Scrabble, and not go to a nightclub.

One of my friends, Patrick, whom I first met at the meetup who wanted to spend some more time with my other friend and me, when entering the business, sat down and initiated discussion with some of the other patrons sitting adjacent to us. I'll recount that which I can remember although, of course, memory can be faulty and I don't remember everything. Patrick asked a group of three people "Can I ask you a personal question?" and all responded in the affirmative. Patrick asked, "Do you believe in God?" At least two of them said, "I don't really go to church though" or something very similar.

One of the persons in the group said "that's a very personal question" after the person said that it was okay to ask a personal question. Patrick responded saying, "yes, it is a personal question." Soon after this, two persons of the group walked away and left the business. One of the persons stayed to discuss and said something similar to "I want to send my children with church so they can be functioning in life." I said, looking up from the Scrabble board, something similar to "Why does one need church to be functioning? Do you think atheists aren't functioning?" The person responded, "No, I think atheists are functioning" and we entered into a short discussion about whether God is needed for morality.

Soon after this, the owner of the business, a person whom I know and have debated with on various occasions about Christianity (he's a Christian) came to the area where my group was sitting with a religious book of some sorts. Patrick asked him what he was reading and we had a short discussion about religious experiences. The owner said that he came to talk to us because a person alleged that Patrick, when someone mentioned church, responded with "Eww" and this person felt offended and left. The owner said something similar to, "I don't appreciate what you did and I don't appreciate customers leaving because of what you said."

Patrick immediately objected saying that he didn't say "eww" and did not mean to offend anyone. He said that he would like to resolve the situation, meet the person accusing him, and apologize if anyone got offended because he does not intend to offend anyone. The owner refused to do so and only would, after some discussion about the situation, tell the person what Patrick said to him. The owner did not ask us to leave [and we actually stayed until the business closed]. The person who stayed to talk about morality came back to talk, and the accuser failed to face Patrick. The person who stayed to talk concurred that "Eww" was not said and said that he enjoyed talking with us.

I told Patrick that nothing he said was offensive and that if a person is offended by something as simple as a response of "eww" to "I go to church" (whether he said it or not) is not Patrick's problem, but rather the problem of the churchgoer. This is especially ironic because earlier in the night, when Patrick asked someone if he/she believed in a god, the person shuddered and said yes. Patrick said something like "Wow, that tells me alot if you would respond like that." After that discussion, Patrick and I talked about how people get so defensive, are often reluctant to explain their positions - but people like us are happy to explain what we do and do not believe. Truth, I said, should fear nothing.

About 24 hours after the discussion at the business, the above picture comes in....and now you have the backstory to make more sense of what happened.

Update (a few hours after posting): After this post was authored, I discovered that some more people, including the owner of the business, were talking about this 'incident' online.

The initial claim, made by the owner of the business, was that the offense was a result of the comment "ew" when someone spoke of church-going.

Now, the claim, from one certain person, is that Patrick was 'laughing' and 'mocking.'

Now, the owner of the business is blaming the group of three (myself, Patrick, and another friend) for insulting a group of four people [keep in mind that four people weren't even sitting in the couch and one person who was sitting stayed to chat with us and said that nothing offensive was said].

The story is changing...how interesting.

Backstory over!

Throughout my close to three years as an atheist, I often meet religious people who, in a response to a discussion or even writing of mine that no one is compelled to read, claim that atheists, for publicly denying the validity of religious claims, are being offensive. Such people often resort to the profoundly lackluster 'defense' of 'right to opinion' (and seemingly now, right to faith as shown in the picture) somehow claiming that their beliefs should not be challenged, those who do so are acting in an immoral fashion, and that "no one deserves to be mocked or laughed at."

I have noted on previous occasions that I have never, ever, ever heard an atheist resorting to these lines of 'defense.' Atheists I know who are very public about their atheism hear all sorts of egregiously offensive remarks from theists, but they don't hide behind a 'right to opinion' or fail to have the discussions if they happen to feel offended. Theists, it seems, speak from a perspective of great privilege and are not accustomed to defending their beliefs (as the Bible in 1 Peter 3:15 compels followers of the New Testament to do).

When I am in a conversation and believe that someone said something quite egregious to me, I respond to the claim and try to resolve the problem. For example, someone in a recent conversation told me that I haven't had enough experience in life yet and that is why I don't believe in God. Further, she said that atheists are unhappy, lonely, and bitter and while I might be happy now, I won't be later in life. Instead of just walking away from the discussion or whatever else, I responded to this claim that might anger a great deal of atheists.

Theists often work from the false assumption that disagreement is somehow 'judging' someone (see above picture) and that disagreement is disrespect. I have answered this objections in this post and would rather not rehash my responses to this. To quickly summarize, disagreement with an idea should not be construed as a character evaluation of a person holding the idea, people should not assume that others consider them to be 'stupid' because they disagree with an idea, and we need to 'separate beliefs from persons' by 'stepping back from our beliefs' in order to challenge our own beliefs, get closer to arriving at truth, and have discussions with those who disagree with us.

This idea of 'right to opinion' is probably my least favorite statement anyone can possibly utter in any discussion [related to religion]. Am I acting in an immoral fashion if I present an objection to your position? Shall I refrain from ever uttering disagreement because people might claim offense? Holding an opinion simply doesn't make something true. Not all opinions are 'created equal' and many opinions can be said to have more truth-value than others. Why is it the case that you have a 'right to opinion' and I, apparently, do not have a 'right to voice my opinion?'

I wonder why -- if it is even the case that someone who might be so offended by the response of "Ew" when one would admit going to church -- someone would even have discussions about their beliefs if persons are so easily threatened when they are talking about them. If I, for instance, did not want to talk about topic x and someone asked a question about topic x, I would say that I did not want to talk about topic x. If the person continued to talk about topic x, I would leave the situation or do something to stop the discussion of topic x. While all people are different and may not take this seemingly rational approach, it makes little sense to subject yourself to a discussion that you do not want to take part in and then complain about what was said in the discussion when you had an option to not have the discussion and were later given the option to rectify the problem.

Racism

Racists operate under the irrational belief that some people, typically because of skin color or country of origin, are inferior to other people. Some racists may want some individuals to have less rights than others, may claim that 'mixing of races' is bad for whites, etc. Contrary to what some racists may believe, race is a social construct and there is no 'scientific basis for racism.' While I certainly can't 'speak for all racists' and am not interested in touching on the 'finer points' of racism, I hope that my readers are not racists and generally understand what a racist is for purposes of the discussion.

Atheists, on the other hand, only, at the bare minimum, lack belief in any gods. While many atheists may share similar beliefs (separation of church and state is a good thing, there is no good reason to believe in anything supernatural, faith is not a good pathway to knowledge), it is absurd to compare atheists to racists. Disagreement with theists (or even mocking and laughing at if it happens) is much different than the discrimination against certain people (and much more) because of their skin color or country of origin.

Assume that, and I do not do this, that I said, to a particular theist that they are silly for believing in any gods and said, in a laughing manner, "Are you serious?" when they presented their ideas. Can this even rightly be said to be "just as bad as racism?"

I, and almost [if not all] every atheist I have met, has never argued that theists should have less rights than atheists, that people are biologically inferior because they believe in gods, or anything similar. My arguments against faith-based belief and the like are against ideas, not persons; I don't discriminate against persons by any means.

It seems quite disconcerting that this topic even has to be addressed. Voicing disagreement with someone on matters of religious belief is not "as bad as racism."

It's also quite ironic that a person who says "get some class" compares atheists to racists.

PA governor's school voucher program raises church-state concerns

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "PA governor's school voucher program raises church-state concerns." View this article and more of my articles on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for notifications of new content!

Equality for atheists in the 'marketplace of ideas'

A new post of mine has been published on American Atheists' "No God Blog" titled "Equality for atheists in the 'marketplace of ideas." Enjoy!

Now writing for American Atheists' "No God Blog!"

I have joined the team of writers for American Atheists' "No God Blog."

As always, thanks for the continuing support, re-linking, and positive 'reviews' of my work!

My writing is now being featured on Examiner.com, American Atheists' "No God Blog," and, of course, this website. As I have been doing with the Examiner.com articles, I'll be relinking "No God Blog" posts on justinvacula.com so that my readers are "kept in the loop."

Debate Challenge Accepted by Charlie "Bible Buck" Hatchko

CHARLIE HATCHKO ADDRESSING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Someone in Northeastern Pennsylvania has finally accepted my public debate challenge.

Charlie "Bible Buck" Hatchko, a candidate running for Luzerne County Council, said he would debate me in the future soon after the upcoming election.

After posting the challenge on his Facebook page, Hatchko said

Yes I will debate You. What are the specifics of the debate. After my election we will debate if the debate is on Biblical and theological, and philosophical principles.

A quick search of Google reveals that Charlie's writing is featured on The Catholic Legate under apologetics. Many in the local area know that he is a frequent WILK Newsradio caller who is quick to cite scripture as justification for his ideas and that his politics are informed by theology. For instance, on "PittstonPolitics.com with Joe Valenti," Hatchko writes

We should respect the unborn and the living. We should acknowledge the Creator's gracious gifts. One should acknowledge God as the Creator of all and appeals to Him for help in protecting all He has graciously given us. With all these gifts comes the right to use them justly.

Hence all such rights are the gifts of God as affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. These include the right to life and liberty. The Declaration of Independence Rights are God-Given. All rights are unalienable in that none have a right to take them unjustly.

Liberty includes the pursuit of happiness, which is the possession and exercise of virtue. Virtue is moral excellence goodness Remember (Proverbs 11:3) The integrity of the upright guide them. (Proverbs 13:6) Righteous guards the man of integrity. (Proverbs 14:34) Righteousness exalts a nation. (Wisdom 9:3) We are to rule the world in holiness and righteousness, and pronounce judgment in integrity of heart and soul.

Liberty includes the right to use and claim as an individual possession any unclaimed thing received from the hand of God, in or upon or above the Earth. This right to any possession includes its entire use, that is, its exchange, control, protection, and entire disposition. And the first and greatest of these possessions is our life.

Hatchko also frequently appears in local Letter to the Editor sections. Here is on example:

Making good moral choices and true moral judgments is an absolute necessity in Luzerne County government.

Making the right moral and ethical choices includes fiscal integrity and the promulgation and proclamation that protects the dignity of the human person and societal value of the family and residents of Luzerne County and the societal value of the state and nation is extremely crucial.

My perspectives and ideologies are based on Biblical principles, Christian virtues, natural law and on research that will be beneficial to the common good in Luzerne County. Every economic decision should be based on whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the human person and the societal value of the family. Elected Luzerne County Council members' decisions determine and affect the lives of all people in Luzerne County. The respect for the individual human being and the societal value of every family is extremely important in decision-making.

I have attended approximately 40 home rule and transition committee meetings, yes more than any other candidate. Hearing testimony at home rule meetings on the operating procedures on every Luzerne County row office and other offices in Luzerne County Courthouse has been very beneficial, which will help me determine the operation, integrity and fiscal integrity of the office. Voters must recognize and realize that most candidates did not attend one home rule meeting.

With the absolute corruption coming through the judiciary in Luzerne County, the arrests and convictions of Conahan, Ciavarella and Toole give definite witness that moral authority as a force is extremely needed in Luzerne County. Do not be vexed by political jargon and rhetoric. Moral authority is crucial and authority as a moral force cannot be denied. Authority must be guided by the moral law which has God as its first choice and final end.

Authority must recognize, respect and promote essential human and moral values. Authority must enact just laws that correspond to human dignity and fiscal integrity. Political authority is accountable to the voters and people, and moral certitude determines good government.

Charlie Bible Buck Hatchko,

Candidate for Luzerne County Council,

Jenkins Township

I'm very much looking forward to this debate. As you know, the challenge states that the debate will be public. More details will be announced in the future. Hope to see you there!

Ben Phelps: People who live like Steve Jobs go to Hell

New Examiner.com article - Exclusive interview with Ben Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church

"Ben Phelps: People who live like Steve Jobs go to Hell"

View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notifications of new content!

Letter sent to Luzerne County Prison!

In a recent post titled "When Diplomacy Fails...at the Luzerne County Prison [another case of discrmiination toward atheists]," I detailed the failed attempts at diplomacy with the Luzerne County Prison and outlined how the prison is discriminating against atheists. The NEPA Freethought Society is now taking action.

Here is the letter:

Letter sent to Luzerne County Prison

Gainor: Santorum target of "ongoing hate campaign" by media and LGBT movement

I just published a new Examiner.com article titled "Gainor: Santorum target of "ongoing hate campaign" by media and LGBT movement." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Logic of Catholic bishops dictates Catholics cannot vote for President Obama

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Logic of Catholic bishops dictates Catholics cannot vote for President Obama." Please view this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe to my page for instant updates via e-mail.

Thanks to Michael De Dora for providing a link on the Rationally Speaking blog to enable this article :)

When diplomacy fails...at the Luzerne County Prison [another case of discrimination toward atheists]

When considering church/state violations, some of my first courses of action is diplomacy: I ask questions, file right-to-know requests, research, and send e-mails to appropriate individuals. Before threats of litigation, I want to settle problems on my own behalf. Unfortunately, it is often the case that diplomacy does not work and often the case that government officials won't take action or recognize that they are in the wrong until attorneys get involved. when diplomacy fails and there is a clear violation, it is time to act and 'take off the kid gloves.'

Months ago, I contacted the Luzerne County Prison on behalf of the NEPA Freethought Society with the intention of starting a program for non-religious prisoners in order to provide an alternative to the plethora of religious programs in the Luzerne County prison. My first courses of action were to call the prison to gain an audience with the warden, send a letter to the prison via certified mail announcing my intentions, and talk to the secretary of the warden. Rodney Collins, the other co-organizer of the NEPA Freethought Society also spoke to persons at the prison on the telephone. Eventually, after much time that turned out to be wasted, the secretary of the warden said "the warden does not like the idea." Before this, the secretary said that she would have to clear the proposal with a priest in the prison.

After this, asked what, exactly, an organization or individual had to do to get a program started in the prison. I was told that I would have to call this person...and then that person...and then was told to call the prison. This wasted even more time and I got 'the runaround.' I then filed a right-to-know request asking what one needed to do to get a program running in the prison and only got information regarding what programs are in the prison. I hit a dead end, waited for a response from the prison, and hoped for a chance to have a program for non-religious prisoners...and got nothing.

Months later/today, I have considered more options, considered the issue more, and decided that this is a very worthy battle to fight and, once again, to 'get involved with politics' in Luzerne County, stir the pot, and cease to give up.

This appears to be a very clear case of discrimination against prisoners and atheists who wish to run a program in the prison. If religious prisoners are able to request and receive services from ministers, why can't non-religious prisoners have the same rights and why can't a non-religious organization have the same rights as a religious organization?

The prison failed to provide information about how one starts a program in the prison and apparently doesn't care to allow atheists to have a program in the prison and to allow non-religious prisoners to have the same rights as religious prisoners.

The time for diplomacy is over. The prison will have one more opportunity to comply and stop discriminating against atheists. If the prison does not want to comply, attorneys will get involved, the media will be alerted, I will report on this issue on my Examiner.com page, atheists will be notified, a petition will be formed, and there will be a large outcry against the prison.

While it is too bad that actions such as the above listed must happen, I have little choice but to pursue them. It's really too bad that the Luzerne County Prison wants to discriminate against atheists. I tried diplomacy, 'the waiting game,' and hoping for chance...but that did not work.

No issue of discrimination like this one is a 'small issue' or a battle that shouldn't be fought. Government entities may not discriminate and the rights of atheists, everywhere, should be defended by those who can do so. Let us stand together in solidarity to make some change happen.

Religious of NEPA silent on atheists' debate challenge

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Religious of NEPA silent on atheists' debate challenge." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content!

A Response to "Christianity is truth-ful" and criticism of Christians who 'make up their own religion'

About a week ago, I had a discussion with a woman at the Pages and Places book festival prologue party. I told her that I was a local writer and blogger after she asked what I do and talked I began to speak about my article regarding the contraceptive healthcare mandate and why the arguments against it are very problematic. She asked me if I was an atheist, I replied in the affirmative, and she was quite disgruntled. She said "Jesus still loves you and doesn't want you to go to Hell." I told her that I find no good reason to believe in her god or Hell and raised several objections to her statement: If I'm going to be punished for non-belief (especially when God gives me no good reason to believe he exists and he could), Christianity is quite an immoral system, it's not just to punish people from other religions, and if God doesn't want me to go to Hell, why would he send me there?

The woman replied and said that people from other religions can be saved as long as they 'believe in something.' This type of response of common from people known as religious pluralists or otherwise those who seem to 'invent their own religions.' Besides this sentiment of hers being very unbiblical, she provided no justification for her belief. I asked her why she believed this and there was no reply regarding justification. We soon entered into a discussion regarding the problem of evil (in light of the recent flooding that devastated the area that prominent religious persons namely Fr. Jack Ryan and Bishop Bambera had much to say about) and the women's defense for God allowing evil was that we need natural disasters to know what good is and to be charitable to others. I asked her, before objecting, if God created these natural disasters because we can have this good and charity without them (and would have more opportunities to do so) and she said that God isn't responsible for natural disasters!

While some theologians, priests, and laypersons may back away from belief in a literal Hell and a punishment for sins (although this seems to be quite contrary to the New Testament), it makes little sense for a Christian to claim that God is not responsible for natural disasters because one of the most common beliefs amongst Christians, I would wager, is that God created the universe. If God created the universe, it seems only logical to assume that he is responsible for the natural laws that guarantee the occurrence of natural disasters.

I try not to assume much about the beliefs of theists I happen to be having discussions with, but it seems reasonable for me to assume some basic ideas that a person might hold. When theists divert away from the standard teachings of their religion, I am quite lost because the person seems to have little justification for their claims from both their holy book/religious tradition (provided that this actually provided justification) and from 'standard reason.' If one calls him/herself a Christian, it seems to make little sense to use this label if one does not believe the standard 'set' of Jesus was raised from the dead by God, Jesus died for the sins of humankind, God created the universe, and God is omni-max (all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful).

--

Theologian John Haught, at his 2011 lecture at King's College, asserted that 'God likes drama' and that there is so much calamity in the universe and on earth because it's part of a beautiful narrative by God. Without calamity, he reasoned, life wouldn't be interesting...and there wouldn't be freedom, a future, or life. Haught says that without 'accidents in the universe,' there would be no novelty, evolution, progress, or meaning in life. All of this, of course, flies in the face of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god who can presumably have the universe in any way he wants...which would allow a story, progress, freedom, etc.

As an atheist, I suppose I don't get to define what makes one a Christian or who can rightly use the label (and, again, I don't want to drift into no true Scotsman territory). There certainly is a wide diversity amongst individual believers, some people may interpret some passages differently, and the Bible can be the 'big book of multiple choice' as hosts and co-hosts of The Atheist Experience often say. Look at one verse and Jesus tells people to pray in private and look at others that support open prayer... Look at one verse and prayer is said to work if one has the faith of a mustard seed and then hear the commonly voiced 'God helps those who help themselves' (and one wonders how helping oneself can be distinguished from God intervening).

Theologians and individual believers, when they engage in apologetics, often seem to make God smaller and smaller when they gradually move away from the standard claims that Christians make. In my two years as an atheist at a Catholic college, I have heard believers say that Hell doesn't exist, but rather 'Hell' is separation from God. I have heard that Jesus didn't literally raise from the dead, but rather the story is 'truthful' in that the lessons learned are the real value in the story. I have heard that prayer is just trust in God and that God doesn't actually intervene in human affairs.

The list goes on and on... God seems to boil down to that little gap that we have left to put him in when it is most likely the case that that gap will fade and allow a new one to open up... God used to be the explanation for disease, droughts, lightning, earthquakes, and so much more. Now, though, we can explain these things without evoking a deity. Believers now look to the brain and the universe in order to slide God in somewhere while often not understanding that they are committing a version of the fallacious appeal to ignorance: just because we can't explain something does not give us any justification to assert 'God did it.' Yesterday's god-explanations are today's science.

When theologians and individual believers recognize that the challenges to main-line faith claims are too overwhelming and that Christianity reduces to a 'way of life' and 'truthful' because the stories teach lessons, why don't they just be honest and call themselves secular Christians, or just shed the label of Christian altogether? As I've noted before, there is a wide disconnect between theologians, priests, and laypersons. The theologians and priests are often claiming far less -- as far as metaphysical religious truth claims are concerned -- than the laity, but the laity are endorsing ideas like creationism, for example. Where are the laypersons getting these ideas from...and why aren't their ministers doing something about this?

It might be easy for priests and theologians to say "Well, persons x, y, and z can go out on their own and read what deep thinkers in the Christian tradition are saying, study on their own, etc," but these persons are obviously not doing this. Are the church services and Bible studies merely a 'pat on the back and let's all agree and don't actually learn anything' sessions? Are the CCD classes for children very similar to the ones i attended while I was in kindergarten (!) until high school? When I look back to my early religious education, I was taught about a literal hell, a literal Adam and Eve story, how I and my family members could go to Hell if we didn't confess our sins on a regular basis, and was very concerned about my great-grandmother's soul.

If Christianity really boils down to "living life according to the teachings of Jesus as individuals interpret them while cutting out all the bad stuff or redefining it away or making excuses for it and living life according to the metaphorical teachings of the Bible," there's really not much more to it than me reading Lord of the Rings and doing the same while not actually believing in a literal Gandalf and the label itself appears to be meaningless.

Further, this idea of Christianity being 'truth-ful' can be a 'move' known as equivocation - an informal logical fallacy that is committed when one uses a word in two different contexts and obfuscates meaning. Saying that Christianity is true (when we accept the standard understanding of true as meaning based in fact and in accordance with reality) and then saying it is truth-ful (meaning that the teachings one can derive have some semblance of moral truth to them) is to equivocate.

Sure, one can certainly gain benefits from a Christianity such as this (although I would argue that one can have the benefits without Christianity and be better off without the religious baggage), but it's quite empty of standard understanding and the common threads that believers share as far as metaphysical truth claims are concerned. This Christianity is certainly much 'nicer' than the standard fare, but it appears to be an incredibly dishonest position to take. Why don't those who believe in a 'truth-ful Christianity' shed themselves of the Christian label and just call themselves secular Christians?

Atheist group now permitted to march in community parade

As a follow-up to yesterday's article, "Atheist group denied entry into Millersville Community Parade." I published an article titled "Atheist group now permitted to march in community parade." Please subscribe to my Examiner.com page for instant notifications of new articles.

Foundation Beyond Belief: A Charity that Atheists (and everyone else) Can Support

At any given moment, one can consider the breadth of ongoing issues in the world whether they be children dying in Kenyan famines, psychics deceiving and taking money from persons in difficult times, discrimination facing the LGBT and atheist communities, or the current ratio of wealth of CEOs to the median-wage worker in the United States and feel tremendously overwhelmed. As very limited humans, we can't possibly address every issue because of financial limitations, educational limitations, lack of a platform for speech or audience, confidence, and many other issues. While one person -- or one group of persons -- can't possibly solve or address every issue in the world, individuals can use their talents or donate money (if they are able to do so) to causes they view (and are evidentially-based) as effective.

In the area of charitable aid, not everyone has disposable income to offer to worthy causes and

charities. While making large donations can obviously be more helpful than making smaller ones, smaller donations -- even at the level of a mere five dollars a month that persons would probably never miss -- can be helpful - and especially when five dollars accumulates when multiple persons donate. Similarly, those who don't have a massive amount of wealth, yet have disposable income that they can afford to part with, can donate to charities.

Atheists often ask questions such as "Which charities should I donate to?" and are hesitant to donate because many charities have religious components that they do not wish to support.

A growing organization that humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious folk can support -- and is specifically tailored to the non-religious -- and donate to is the Foundation Beyond Belief. Their website notes,

Foundation Beyond Belief is a 501 (c)(3) charitable foundation created to focus, encourage and demonstrate humanist generosity and compassion. [...] Carefully selected for impact and efficiency, our favored beneficiaries may be founded on any worldview so long as they act in accordance with humanist values including mutual care, responsibility, and free inquiry and do not proselytize.

One of Foundation Beyond Belief's current initiatives, among others, is to address what is being called the world's "worst humanitarian crisis" in the Horn of Africa. The most severe drought in sixty years in the Horn of Africa prompted the UN to make a formal declaration for famine in Southern Somalia - the first such declaration in twenty years. Tens of thousands have died and eleven million people are currently at risk for starvation.

Foundation Beyond Belief offers many options for those who wish to donate: persons can donate anywhere from five dollars a month to one thousand a month or send one-time donations. According to their website, Foundation Beyond Belief

select[s] and feature[s] ten charitable organizations per quarter, one in each of the following cause areas: health, education, poverty, environment, children, human rights, animals, peace, challenge the gap (charities based in other worldviews), and Foundation Beyond Belief itself. Members join the Foundation by signing up for a monthly automatic donation in the amount of their choice, then set up personal profiles to indicate how they would like their contribution distributed among the ten categories.

Being able to choose exactly where your money goes is a wonderful component of being a member of Foundation Beyond Belief. Many say that they don't wish to donate to issues taking place outside of America, contribute greatly to administrative costs of charities, or contribute to causes they might not support. Fear not, Foundation Beyond Belief allows you to allocate your donations.

Foundation Beyond Belief is working with groups such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF USA), ActionAid USA, and War Child to raise awareness in the non-theist community of the ongoing drought and famine in the Horn of Africa. Foundation Beyond Belief is also currently working with Operation Wildlife, Islamic Relief USA (as per their challenge the gap initiative), HeartStrong, Adopt-A-Classroom, and Polaris Project.

While I don't have a large amount of disposable income, I am a member of Foundation Beyond Belief and donate five dollars a month that I will never miss! Why don't you become a member?